A Simple Step To Reduce Climate Change: More Trees
Planting trees as a partial solution to climate change has broad bipartisan appeal.

Glasgow - The 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) draft decision document, which is supposed to incorporate countries' negotiated deals on how to address man-made climate change, includes language focused on protecting and using nature as a way to reduce future warming.
Specifically, the document "emphasizes the importance of protecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosystems, including forests and other terrestrial and marine ecosystems, to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature goal by acting as sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and protecting biodiversity, while ensuring social and environmental safeguards." In this case, "sinks and reservoirs" refer to natural ways to absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The Paris Agreement aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature by 2100 to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. It also pursues a more ambitious effort to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
In support of the goal of using nature-based solutions to address climate change, the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests and Land Use was announced near the beginning of COP26 on November 2. So far, 137 countries have endorsed the goal of ending deforestation by 2030. Those countries account for about 91 percent of the world's forests, amounting to more than 14 million square miles. However, following the declaration's announcement, several countries with large forest areas (including Brazil and Indonesia) appear to have backtracked on their endorsements.
Forests can indeed absorb and store large amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) recent analysis of global forest lands' carbon dioxide emission and removal trends between 1990–2020. The analysis finds that deforestation was responsible for annual emissions of roughly 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide globally in the period from 2016–2020. At the same time, the remaining forests sequestered some 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide, resulting in net emissions of about 0.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year from forest lands to the atmosphere.
The good news is that the global rate of deforestation has been slowing over the past three decades. The FAO finds that the rate of annual net forest loss declined from 7.8 million hectares (30,000 square miles) in the period from 1990–2000 to 5.2 million hectares (20,000 square miles) between 2000–2010, reaching 4.7 million hectares (18,000) between 2010–2020. For reference, 18,000 square miles is a bit more than double the area of New Jersey. As the global rate of deforestation fell, carbon dioxide emissions from forests dropped by about one-third from 1990–2020, falling to about 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year in 2020.
The FAO report finds that through deforestation, Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo each annually emit about 600 million tons of carbon dioxide, while Indonesia emits about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide. On the other hand, the countries whose forests absorbed the most carbon dioxide annually are China (650 million tons), Russia (620 million tons), the United States (350 million tons), and Brazil (300 million tons).
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's most recent inventory, American forests absorbed and stored 775 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2019, more than double the FAO's estimate. That cut U.S. emissions by nearly 12 percent.
In 2019, a team of Swiss researchers controversially estimated that worldwide an area of land about the size of the U.S. was potentially available for planting a trillion trees. That many trees could absorb as much as 100–200 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and help keep global average temperatures from rising by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
Such a nature-based solution to climate change has bipartisan appeal in the U.S. The Trillion Trees Act introduced in Congress earlier this year has numerous Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. The bill explicitly aims to "establish forest conservation practices through management, reforestation, and utilization which lead to the sequestration of greenhouse gases."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
For every tree you plant I chop down two.
You're not looking at the bigger picture. What we really need is some sort of tree-related pun that fixates on an individual carbon sink while ignoring the overall (lack of) impact of a large grove of carbon sinks.
I’m knot the carbon activists’ beech.
don't be a sap.
I’m branching out into what I hope becomes a budding industree.
Just don't forget your roots.
Did I strike a cord?
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FWO And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.FWd Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now.............PAYBUZZ
I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that
that is what I do...... READ MORE
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.WQt Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site and visit tabs( Home, Media, Tech )
For more details..............Pays24
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company VBh now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH
You're barking up the wrong tree.
Should I pine fir something else?
You wood, and you should.
Because chipper is not a good place to be.
I’d like to buck that trend.
That's not a good way to make yourself poplar.
In 2019, a team of Swiss researchers controversially estimated that worldwide an area of land about the size of the U.S. was potentially available for planting a trillion trees. That many trees could absorb as much as 100–200 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and help keep global average temperatures from rising by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
In the vein of 'forests for trees'; the 100-200 million tons of CO2 is less than half (~20% optimally) the increase from 2017-2019 emissions. That is, unless you can plant a trillion trees in less than two years, it won't offset growth and, even if you do, the straightforward (and, again, optimal) conclusion is that it pushes the "2 degrees by 2100" back to "2 degrees by 2102".
Planting trees could be part of acornucopia of solutions.
That's nuts.
It might end up being poplar.
Drat! Should have scrolled down. I pine for that opportunity back.
It is fine. Nobody will take you behind the woodshed.
The sad part is that there are plenty of people out there who maple leaf your claims, take them as osage wisdom, pine for a cleaner planet and go out on a limb and insist we each do our part to spruce things up.
On the upside, trees are pretty good at planting themselves, in fact. The amount of greenery in the world has probably actually been limited by the low CO2 in the atmosphere for the last million years or so, and there's more forest in the world now than there was a hundred years ago despite industrial deforestation.
Planting large alsos is also poplar in Greece
You woodn’t dare! Surely your bark is worse than you bite! Oh how I pine for the good old days of Nuclear Winter! l have to leaf it there—I need to check my Kindle before I log off for the night
Is the price of lumber about to go up again?
That is the plane truth. Anyway you cut it.
A saw what you did there.
Was it axcellent?
You ripped a good one.
This seems near to your heartwood you agree?
Stop milling about and leave the puns to the axperts.
I have but a thin veneer of talent for this board.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
The FAO report finds that through deforestation, Brazil
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo eachannually emit[s] about 600 million tons of carbon dioxide...On the other hand, the countries whose forests absorbed the most carbon dioxide annually are
China (650 million tons), Russia (620 million tons), the United States (350 million tons), andBrazil (300 million tons).Wait, wut? Is Brazil emitting 900 million tons and absorbing 300 million or emitting 600 million tons and absorbing 300 million? I only ask because it's like a 50% reduction without planting a single tree.
If you want to know more about Brazilian trees, may I suggest Amazon?
I prefer a Brazilian wax.
For those avoiding linseed oil, the proper way to maintain your axe includes waxing your shaft.
Before she waxes your shaft, get her to use Tung Oil.
"According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's most recent inventory, American forests absorbed and stored 775 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2019, more than double the FAO's estimate. That cut U.S. emissions by nearly 12 percent."
Based on those two estimates, doubling the amount of forests in America would reduce US carbon emissions by an additional 12%-24%, which is a goal the US should have prioritized decades ago.
Unfortunately, left wing environmental whackos and their Democrat allies are far more interested in banning and/or increasing prices of oil, natural gas and coal than reducing global carbon emissions.
Until they all burn down due to Gov mismanagement
Unless they can regularly spruce up the place.
Dammit. Shoulda scrolled down before using the same pun above.
Ya got stumped! Oh well, let this be the trunkated version
No - doubling forests does NOT cut emissions. Cutting emissions cuts emissions. This flimflam about forests as carbon sinks is nothing but preparing the ground for carbon sink tax scams.
I would give Bill the benefit of the doubt that he meant "neutralizes emissions". Make of that what you will.
"This flimflam about forests as carbon sinks is nothing but preparing the ground for carbon sink tax scams."
So you are saying that carbon sequestration isn't an actual scientific fact?
To be clear- sequestration credits already exist. They are already part of most carbon credit markets. In fact, they are a billion times more traceable than "Carbon Offsets". Most offset credits merely give people credit for NOT emitting in a very prescribed way. So if I build an electric car- regardless of the emissions that process took, and the emissions that will come from power plants charging it- I get a credit that I can sell to another car company to produce a traditional car. And that is the most straight forward example. Many other offset credits come from third world countries that were paid not to produce a coal power plant, or other emitting activity.
On the other hand, Sequestration credits are verifiable. Right here is an acre that has been re-purposed to sequester CO2. You can go look at it, and verify it. And you know that it was converted during the governing period.
Of course the entire thing is a scam, but at least the latter is more verifiable.
No - doubling forests does NOT cut emissions.
Who said that? The idea is that more trees will slow rising CO2 levels by absorbing some emissions.
"if your not carbon neutral you shouldn't be allowed to drive eat or get medical treatment"
See I can apply your wuflu logic to the enviroment
"Mr. Treebeard, Mr. Lorax, Mr. Appleseed, the world is counting on you, Godspeed, I mean Gaia speed!"
If Biden, Harris, Pelosi or Schumer were truly interested in significantly reducing global carbon emissions during the next 20-30 years, they'd be demanding building hundreds of nuclear power plants in the US, and slashing hundreds of unwarranted and excessive federal regulations that sharply increased costs and halted the building of nuclear power plants.
That's one of the primary reasons I don't believe in AGW. If I thought we only had
1098TBD years before some magical tipping point, I'd move heaven and earth to add nuclear power as fast as possible, and I wouldn't buy $14.5 M beach front mansions.The facts themselves show it's all a hoax, but even if they backed up the alarmunists, they themselves don't believe in it.
Another illustration of how little the alarmunists believe their own propaganda is the push for organic food, which requires more animal fertilizer to produce less food of poorer quality, necessitating more land which is unavailable for planting trees. They also ignore that a lot of animal food is raised on marginal land which is unsuitable for any kind of farming.
When they can't even coordinate their messages and the desired fantastical nonsensical solutions, they are not serious about anything except being in control.
Wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear for newbuild plants.
And if Americans had more interest in having a nuclear plant nearby, then pols would be all over subsidizing that to the level you would prefer.
Wind doesn’t work on calm days. Solar doesn’t work at night and works like shit on overcast days. There are NIMBY issues with those too.
Oh well then. Looks like what we need is to get govt to pay for a much more expensive energy source with much more NIMBY.
Hydro and nuclear seem like the two reliable options. There is no free lunch.
Government shouldn’t be paying for any of this.
Government will pay. Government always pays. Hydro doesn't have much growth capacity but if you want to flood a valley and move a town, govt does that. Nuclear industry insurance covers the first $15 billion of an accident - with government explicitly covering everything over that. Fukushima will cost Japanese taxpayers roughly $300 billion. Not really the same ballpark is it.
And I'm not opposed to nuclear. But I see a huge continuing cost to the US down that path. Nuclear is highly centralizing. It is never gonna be Billy Bob's Tackle Shop and Nuclear Power Plant. Takes a ton of capital - a ton of long-term issues about the waste - a ton of control needed for the fuel and the operations. With nuclear, we - meaning the US - is going to be the one making sure Iran doesn't do this and Korea doesn't do that and thisthat procedure has to be enforced globally re uranium shipments and processing. That has been the US global role (re oil) for 70 years and has cost us many trillions. Exerting some control over the fuel source or fuel trade.
Wind/solar completely change the game. No one is going to corner the market in wind. Nor can it be sanctioned or really manipulated as an instrument of war. It changes our role as empire and/or global cop. It gives us many many fewer reasons to intervene. Which should be libertarian - except that the R/Mises crowd never really gives a shit about that.
There are existing dams not generating electricity due to environmentalists wanting free waterways for fish that no longer exist. Make the permitting process byzantine, shut down the generator. Then push to have the dam removed.
The parent company of Fukushima still exists. Let them pay. And it was a horrible design for a nuclear power plant. Maybe 2nd gen. But putting the generators below sea level was idiotic and shockingly never identified and corrected. Gensets must be above any potential water level.
Solar doesn’t work at night. And can’t compete without massive subsidies. Not libertarian at all.
Wind and solar can’t provide the base load on the grid. Nuclear and hydro can. As can burning combustibles. Unless you want blackouts and periods where your supply is far from 60 Hz.
There are small nuclear generators being evaluated. There are also convection cooling designs that do not require water to cool after a scram.
Whether the US/Europe goes back to nuclear or not does not affect the current foreign policy of not wanting Iranian and North Korean nuclear reactors making weapons grade radionuclides as byproducts.
I’m looking at thermoelectric generators. Still a bit pricey but maybe as a backup. Dunno if the power is dirty.
provide the base load on the grid.
What Europe is finding is that 'base load on a grid' is a utilities management problem not an energy problem. Personally I don't think the US is capable of seeing the mindset shift. Maybe if I start hearing stuff like electricity intensive companies moving out to the Plains and using wind as an actual comparative advantage. But as long as the mindset is windmills on the Plains with thousands of miles of transmission lines, then we don't get it.
It is a bigger problem when there is no wind at night. Article said Germany is 37% renewables. What are the other 63%?
And they are looking to connect to Norway’s 937 hydro power plants. Why? Reliable base load. You poo-pooed hydro. Yet your cite likes it.
Solar and wind need subsidies today to be close to economically viable. If you want to build a lot of extra capacity with those, it does provide more flexibility. Just being supplemental as it is today is too costly without subsidies. It doesn’t need to be relied on. So paying for that huge extra capacity for flexibility means your electric bill and tax bill will skyrocket. I can get and have gotten my electric bill down to about $20/mn. I can afford a zero at the end of that. Two zeros even. My property tax is about $1,600/yr. A zero could be put on that but not two. How many can afford these spikes? And what are the unintended consequences?
I’m not interested in being forced to pay for a virtue signaling solution to a problem that is at least partially natural and one to which I am not contributing.
When folks that are not carbon neutral like I am talk about me needing to participate in something, my response is clean up your own house before you talk about another’s.
Pretty sure Germany is also buying fossil-fuel power across the borders; Germans like the light to go on when you flip the switch like anyone else, regardless of the signaling.
And how many acres do they need vs nuclear to produce the same amount of power? And Bill also mentioned that we'd also need to cut many of the costly excessive regulations.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/uncategorized/wind-turbines-reduce-productivity-surrounding-vegetation/
Wind turbines mow through a lot of eagles. If I shoot one, I get fined and go to jail. Why aren’t the windmill folks subject to the same penalties?
"Looks like what we need is to get govt to pay for a much more expensive energy source with much more NIMBY."
That is exactly what solar and wind *are*, JFree.
It is truly bizarre that you think Lazard's LCOE numbers are proving that nuclear is more expensive than Solar. That is such a mistaken reading of the data that I wonder if you are intentionally misrepresenting it or not.
"Wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear for newbuild plants."
Um...that study is removing the cost of subsidies from the costs of Solar/Wind/etc. Did you intend to post such propaganda or was it an oversight on your part?
It's not an oversight. The original study is trying to compare newbuild w newbuild rather than comparing a new wind/solar with a nuclear plant that has been fully depreciated and is only pricing at the margin. Subsidies occur on the capital/construction - regardless of source - not on the fuel/operations.
Then were you lying when you said that "wind and solar are cheaper" ? Because those statements don't line up.
You....do understand this....don't you?
Read the Lazard report. You really are just a tired partisan hack who thinks everything is gotcha. No real discussion is possible.
Dude. Partisan in what way? Because just above I was disagreeing with your attempt to dismiss sequestration credits.
You are the one insisting that one is cheaper than the other. But *as you just said* the Lazard report doesn't say that Solar is cheaper than Nuclear. Just because someone building a Solar farm can recoup *their* outlays more easily for Solar than for Nuclear doesn't mean Solar actually COSTS less.
You...do understand that...don't you? Because if you don't know understand, at which point we can talk about how (for example) subsidizing the build of something doesn't make it cheaper but just spreads the cost around. On the other hand, if you DID understand this, then that makes YOU the partisan hack for trying to imply that the study justifies your statement that Solar and wind are actually cheaper than nuclear.
Read the Lazard report. esp the footnotes where they describe eg all sorts of costs that don't get included in nuclear for their marginal cost analysis - eg decommissioning costs, federal loan guarantees, ongoing maintenance-related capital expenditures, etc.
Gotta compare newbuild to newbuild. Just because there haven't BEEN newbuild nukes in the US for a long time doesn't mean they don't get subsidies as well when they do get built. Because they do - see the nuclear 2010 program.
Also pertinent is the false dichotomy. It's not like we're going to get wind/solar or nuclear and no more subsidies. We're going to get wind/solar or nuclear *and* subsidies to plant more trees around nuclear plants or...
Yeah this is the US. We are corrupt as hell. Every penny spent on everything has as its main purpose lining the pockets of some crony. If you think the US doesn't subsidize nuclear (beyond the insurance and capital costs and fuel control and ignoring the waste issue), et voila, Nuclear Power 2010 program. Not sure I see the libertarian case for the same boondoggles but hundreds of times bigger. But hey - at least the Energy Secy then got his cushy post-govt job at a nuclear energy company.
If you think the US doesn't subsidize nuclear
Uh... did you even read what I wrote? You seem to have gone off on a "Profitz iz evul!" tangent.
We're going to get more subsidies either way. The distinction being, especially in a forum/article about sustainability and reforestation, the value (potentially negative) of conflicting demands. Doubly so if you inject your "Profitz is evul!" moral mentality into the conflation of cost and (perceived) value.
Trying to be as clear and impartial as possible: A $10M subsidy for nuclear and a $5M or $50M subsidy for solar is immaterial to the discussion about spending $100M vs. $10M to reduce the land footprint of power generation or reforestation except that the nuclear plant consumes less land, absolutely and relatively to kWh or $ than wind/solar.
When people realize these idiots want to cover millions of acres of wide open natural spaces with bird choppers, solar farms and high voltage lines renewables will die. They have no idea because media does not report on this fact. The reckoning is coming in the next 5 or 10 years. Europe has spent a trillion extra Euros on "green" power vs gas plants the last 15 years to lower their "carbon footprint" by around 2 percent. Talk about a 21st century problem when you have that kind of money to waste. Not to mention they have looming energy shortages that will kill people this winter. Morons.
None of your numbers mean a damn thing if you really want to include resources/land/etc. That ceased to be included in neoclassical/marginalist economics. It is a big reason we have been surprised by 'climate change' - and why many deny it simply because they can't figure out the numbers of it.
Oh - and Denmark gets a major portion of its wind energy from offshore. So - what's the land economics of an offshore nuclear power plant?
That ceased to be included in neoclassical/marginalist economics. It is a big reason we have been surprised by 'climate change' - and why many deny it simply because they can't figure out the numbers of it.
Your first claim is false and by your second claim you're asserting we should strive to make it false. Before you try to address global economies and the environment, maybe you should GYST.
Oh - and Denmark gets a major portion of its wind energy from offshore. So - what's the land economics of an offshore nuclear power plant?
You gonna plant the trillion trees in Denmark? Dumbass.
"...We are corrupt as hell..."
Any time JFree gets called on his (nearly constant) bullshit, we get the "everything's screwed up" response.
Grow up, you pathetic piece of shit. Or, please, fuck off and die.
"trees" around/under solar/wind at a higher cost.
Only with government subsidies for both building and operating, they produce far more pollution to build, they have miserably short lifetimes, and they are unreliable.
Other than, perfectly fine.
Nuclear is more expensive solely due to regulations, politics, and subsidies
Regulations based on Doomsday scenarios that were originally far more likely to be caused by JFK than any meltdown and that, at this point, are about as feasible/probable as any given storm being caused by AGW.
If Biden, Harris, Pelosi or Schumer were truly interested in significantly reducing global carbon emissions
And Gavin would have attended COP26 instead of the Getty wedding.
On a larch, folks could consider linden a helping hand with this.
Useless solution to a fake problem.
More trees and fewer loud ignorant folks would serve civil liberty-minded folks well, though.
I've been on 86 named glaciers and a couple of static ice sheets. That's from Alaska to Patagonia, Europe and New Zealand. As far as I can tell; all but 6 are shrinking. There's no explanation but warming climate that can account for that.
Keep getting your science information from Rush Limpball and the know-it-alls like whatsupwiththat. You can be THE ONE WITH THE REAL STORY.
Not sure many are claiming the temperature isn’t rising. The Earth is either headed into or out of an ice age. We are headed out of one. The questions are how much are humans contributing to do this, what are the impacts and what are the options.
When CAGW supporter Obama buys an oceanfront mansion, it suggests this isn’t important to him. When activists travel from around the world to a conference in Scotland, they are polluting carbon. When Al Gore’s house was using 12 times the energy as an average American’s then maybe the former VP doesn’t believe in this. Climate Tsar John Kerry’s private jet was belching out over 100 tonnes of carbon in one year…you get the idea. When folks claiming there is a crisis are not acting like one, they lose a lot of credibility.
"...Keep getting your science information from Rush Limpball and the know-it-alls like whatsupwiththat. You can be THE ONE WITH THE REAL STORY."
Proving yourself to be a brain-dead lefty shit real quick; do you make up imbecilic names for, say Trump?
This works best with oak trees, long the favorite for correcting wayward politicians.
To flog them? To burn them at the stake? Let's go Brandon!
Recently I have been led to believe ownership of treed land is literally the most racist thing of all.
That many trees could absorb as much as 100–200 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and help keep global average temperatures from rising by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
Careful! By this logic if we plant too many trees, we'll end up creating the ice age they were predicting in the '70s.
The "they" that were predicting an ice age in the 70's were sensationalist reporters being paid by the word.
And I'd prefer a new ice age. I ski and I climb ice.
Ron should have checked his arithmetic before writing :
"an area of land about the size of the U.S. was potentially available for planting a trillion trees. That many trees could absorb as much as 100–200 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere'
That only works out for bonsai--Divide ten to the eighth tons of carbon by ten to the twelve trees, and you've got 100 grams per tree. 100 kilos per tree per year is more like it.
A recent paper in Earth System Dynamics asserts carbon uptake by forests could be doubled by lighting them up at night, at a lower energy cost per ton of carbon sequestered than direct air capture of CO2.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-futures-so-bright-youre-gonna-need.html
Environmentalists are watermelons. Green on the outside and red in the middle.
The ultimate goal is to force a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle onto the masses. We're talking about people who think Pol Pot was on the right track.
Everything helps and certainly planting more trees is a good option. It not going to offset the carbon cut backs we need to make but it can certainly ease the burden. We talk a lot about energy and transportation, but these may be the easiest to reduce carbon use. Some manufacturing like cement and steel will be harder to reduce carbon emissions and this is where extra trees may be most useful.
Also, once again, I'll point out that all the way around, plastics are better carbon sinks than trees and pretty much everything except nutritious vegetation. Plastics trap carbon more densely, release it much less readily by natural means, much more readily and controllably by artificial means, and are more durable, malleable, and generally useful in the between capture and release.
And we could build a wall out of it.
Or possibly boob implants. Carbon sequestering fake breasts!
1 trillion boobs covering a landmass roughly the size of the US? We better get to work!
That would be mammarable.
They ultimately will have to ration energy use. Gas rationing, carbon allowances that will limit your ability to freely travel when and where you want to. It's the only way to achieve their delusional goals and will make zero difference as developing nations will obviate the cuts with Chinese built coal plants, thousands of them. People don't yet realize this as the eggheads have neglected to mention it. When they do all these fantasies go out the window, guaranteed.
Your social credit score + campaign donations to The Party will be used to determine your carbon allocation.
Whoops. Above was not meant in reply.
You know what would really cutback on carbo emissions?
China.
I'm very skeptical of mass tree planting as an effective means of counteracting anthropogenic warming. In fact, I think it could be counter productive. I could see this turning into yet another centrally planned boondoggle. (full disclosure, I'm not overly concerned about the long term prospects of climate change anyway)
There are three reasons for my thoughts above: evapotranspiration rates, albedo, and long term carbon sink potential.
Forests have much higher evapotranspiration rates than grasslands, and as far as I know, water vapor/cloud cover is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect.
Also, grasslands typically have a higher albedo than most other landscapes (including forests). It seems to follow that more solar energy would be absorbed per unit area with more trees.
Finally, while forests sequester more carbon quickly in biomass (wood), most of that is eventually re-released into the atmosphere either through biological processes or fire. Grasslands, by comparison, store much more carbon, much longer term, in the soils.
Ipso facto... please don't use my tax dollars to plant trees.
Grasslands, by comparison, store much more carbon, much longer term, in the soils.
Again, plastics store (and release) carbon much more densely, efficiently, and usably than any viable natural alternative.
Ipso facto... please don't use my tax dollars to subsidize plastic production either.
Yes, environmentalists seem to ignore the potential positives of landfills (eg carbon sequestration).
Of course, the counter argument to plastics is that they're mostly petroleum based; so at best the carbon is just being re-sequestered. Bioplastics might be an option, though I think they're readily biodegradable for the most part. So much of the carbon in those polymers ends up back in the atmosphere at some point.
I wonder if there are any hybrid plastics that use cellulose/starch based raw materials along with petro polymers for stability and longevity?
This whole post is baffling to either point. I can't tell if you're just confused or struggling to rationalize/implement the green agenda through/against reality, or paint over the "really, we just want to fuck with people" motivation.
All the carbon, even with trees, is just re-sequestered. The supposed goal is to reduce atmospheric carbon, if you're going to get picky about sequestered vs. re-sequestered then you really don't want to reduce atmospheric carbon, because it's all re-sequestered. The idea that we shouldn't (re-)sequester carbon because it's from petroleum sources and should focus on bioplastics is essentially moving the (hypothetical) goals of lowering CO2, lowering global temps, and saving people to the back burner in favor of Gaiaism. "You" don't want to save people from death, "you" want to fuck with people until they profess subservience to "your" ongoing fuckery.
Second, of course there are hybrid plastics. Step into a Home Depot sometime. Virtually all exist thanks to the superior properties of plastics. But, underlying the question specifically asked in the larger context is the question "Can we augment a superior carbon sink with an inferior one?" Absolutely, of course. However, if the goal is sequestration and not simply just exercising control and/or punishing people, why?
(*shrug*) probably just confused. My first post made it clear I'm not on the climate crusade, especially not if it means any kind of coercive collective action.
Both of my posts were simply in context of long term reductions in atmospheric carbon. I understand that there's a carbon cycle whereby carbon is sequestered, released, and then re-sequestered. On human time scales, though, introducing fossil sourced carbon into the cycle is a net addition. So re-sequestering it (as in petrol based plastics) doesn't really do anything. Sequestered bioplastics in landfills, however, might serve the goals of climate activists. (again, I'm not advocating anything... just find it interesting).
The ironic part of it is that environmentalists advocate bioplastics specifically because they're biodegradable... thereby releasing the captured carbon back into the atmosphere.
(*shrug*) probably just confused.
I guess I am as well. Obeying an unstated "Carbon may not be sequestered back as fossil fuels" with no real, or minimal, faith/understanding as to why.
Of course it's overblown, but as far as wasting government funds go it isn't much money and trees do have a lot of positive effects.
TRUE.
"trees do have a lot of effects"
Sure... and a lot of neutral effects, and a lot of negative effects.
If there's a good, targeted reason for doing something, then go for it. I'm saying that "combating climate change" is very much not a good reason.
Most deforestation is in South America (primarily Brazil) and Africa. Forests have been increasing in the US and Europe.
If developed countries were truly interested in keeping forests intact, they would be improving the farming capabilities in those areas for more food to be produced on less land.
More efficient agricultural practices to improve yields would reduce runoff and pollution, preserve forest land and possibly even reduce hunger.
that's not true in California. Notes from the original surveyors show that as they say: a squirrel could go from the pacific ocean to treeline in the Sierra and not have to set foot on the ground. It's plowed farmland, 6 lane freeways and suburban sprawl now. Add that to the burned-for-temporary-farming tracts of Ecuador, Brazil and the rest of SA and you have global deforestation.
We can use more trees, but we NEED birth control.
"...but we NEED birth control."
Bullshit.
A Population Bomb idiot has arrived.
Notes from the original surveyors show that as they say: a squirrel could go from the pacific ocean to treeline in the Sierra and not have to set foot on the ground.
Those must've been some surveyors to show up with a ready-made map of California and then fail to realize they were effectively saying, "A squirrel could travel from treetop to treetop and never leave California."
Or... you took a stupid, superficially wrong apocryphal story and managed to shoehorn in your own stupidity in order to make it even stupider (and managed to slander some surveyors in the process).
If the exogenously-imposed deserts of California aren't enough to stop Californians from reproducing but your stupidity may be.
You might enjoy this book by Italo Calvino:
https://libgen.is/fiction/?q=baron+in+the+trees
By the way, I suspect when Kyle T writes 'forest' he means forests and plantations. Same holds for our author Ronald B.
Bailey - how many trees need to be planter to counter China's contribution to global warming?
Especially since water - released by trees - is also a significant driver of warming.
really reaching for a know-nothing excuse to deny observable fact
, aren't you Agammamon?
Water vapor in the atmosphere affects warming and cooling you nitwit.
Agammamon; as many as it takes, and I'll take the cherries, apples, nectarines, and tangerines as a free bonus.
Great idea about planting trees to sequester carbon, make free oxygen and cool the ground below them. Fruit bearing and native-to-the-region trees would be most useful, I think.
Fruit trees are small. This is in part so the fruits can be easily harvested. An apple tree has a small amount of biomass compared with say an ash, oak or maple. Even a wild apple versus those.
Chumby; You can wait for the government to come up with a better idea then, or just deny the problem. I'll enjoy my apricots, pluots, lemons peaches, pears and shade.
I only have two choices?
Go calculate the carbon sequestering from a lemon versus a pine. I own a lot of trees. The last wild apple I felled and bucked was less than a half ton wet. Maybe eight inches in diameter and about twenty feet tall. Had some hemlocks logged with about the same footprint that were cut in half because the skidders couldn’t haul them out full length. Two plus feet in diameter and over a hundred feet tall. The formula I use for tree carbon sequestering is based on x * D^2 * H. The apple doesn’t have the diameter or the height. The hemlock has it beat by 15 times.
I don’t count my fruit trees when calculating my sequestering.
If you want to grow fruit trees, I’m all for it. They are wonderful. But they aren’t pulling out the carbon like their much larger tree relatives.
Well I cut down the maple trees around my house as they had become a hazard to the building. I have planted a few apple trees further back. Totally neutral on trees. I will gladly cut one down if it threatens my lifestyle.
A Simple Step To Reduce Climate Change..
STOP BELIEVING the Climate Change B.S. that has REPEATEDLY proven to be false every counting day that goes by. What do they call a hypothesis that is not only unpredictable but entirely not true??? A LIE!
Omg! That was sooooo hard.... 🙂
CO2 is NOT the issue. Planting more trees is fine, but it won't do one damn thing to "change the environment." More CO2 is GOOD! Plants LOVE CO2. The more the better.
I think we need to planting more tree. Specially if you have some free space you need to plant fruits trees.
Here Are The Causes Of Climate Change https://wikibump.com/what-are-the-5-causes-of-climate-change
Yet another socialist solution that does nothing to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, identified as THE most salient source of global warming by global scientists.
Cutting down old growth forests and replacing them with oil palm plantations is no solution to anything. It's a devastating loss in biodiversity and our ecologists will vehemently resist such measures.
I haven't had much luck with grafting, but there are some wonderful examples. Choose a root stock that will grow into something big and substantial. If it's an apple, taste is not important. Onto the root stock, graft something tasty. Once the tree is healthy and growing, more and different varieties can be grafted onto the branches. Some trees have maybe 20 varieties grafted onto a single tree. It seems like a very rewarding hobby, but I've never been able to make a success out of it.
Already happening. Global forest cover has expanded by an area greater than Texas and Alaska combined over the last 40 years or so, due to two main factors: increased productivity in agriculture, meaning that marginal land has been allowed to revert to woods, and improved growing conditions due to rising CO2 in the atmosphere.
-jcr
“Useful post”
“Useful post”
While young trees take in CO2 while growing, they also tend to darken the Earth's surface when compared to grass etc, thereby reflecting less visible light back into space.
In addition, trees reduce runoff, returning water as vapor to the atmosphere, and H2O is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
Thus, while temperatures might be cooler under their shade, trees (especially mature ones) warm the climate at the canopy level and contribute to climate change. Farm and grassland management would be better.